JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—At the time of hearing no one appeared on behalf of respondent hence only the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellants were heard. 2. This is defendants’ second appeal arising out of O.S. No. 1203 of 1967 instituted by plaintiff-respondent against Vindhyachal who died during pendency of suit before the trial Court and was substituted by his two sons who were original appellants in this appeal (They have also died and have been substituted by legal representatives). The suit was for possession and demolition and was decreed on 24.8.1974 by 1st Additional Munsif, Deoria. Against the said judgment and decree original appellants filed civil appeal No. 135 of 1974 which was dismissed by Civil Judge, Deoria through judgment and decree dated 14.4.1976 hence this second appeal. 3. Plaintiff’s case was that plot No. 2729 was the property of Jagdish Sugar Mills; that the entire assets of Jagdish Sugar Mills were purchased by the plaintiff including plot No. 2729; that father of original defendant was licensee of Jagdish Sugar Mills and thereafter became the licensee of the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that licence had been revoked by the plaintiff through notice dated 13.10.1962. It was shown in the Schedule at the bottom of-the plaint that total area of plot No. 2729 was 30.35 acres and encroached area was 0.02 acres i.e. less than 100 sq. yard (96.8 sq. yard). The original defendant filed written statement pleading that the portion of plot No. 2729 over which his house was standing was taken by his father from the previous zamindar Ramji Dubey. Ownership of Jagdish Sugar Mill or plaintiff was outrightly denied. Plea of adverse possession was also taken. 4. Plaintiff proved that it had purchased the entire property of Jagdish Sugar Mill including plot No. 2729 by filing certificate of auction purchase, revenue records in respect of the said plot were also filed by the plaintiff which proved its case. Courts below found that defendant could not file any document or prove in any other manner that the land over which his’ constructions were standing belonged to the Zamindar and the Zamindar had permitted father of the defendants to make construction. 5. Courts below found that defendant could not file any document or prove in any other manner that the land over which his’ constructions were standing belonged to the Zamindar and the Zamindar had permitted father of the defendants to make construction. 5. In respect of grant of license by Jagdish Sugar Mill - plaintiff examined two witnesses and the Courts below found that both the witnesses in their oral examination proved the factum of grant of licence by Jagdish Sugar Mill. Courts below also found that defendants’ house, shop and palani were constructed over the land in suit i.e. Part of plot No. 2729. 6. In the plaint it was stated that Jagdish Sugar Mill and thereafter plaintiff permitted defendant’s father to sell edibles as licensee during crushing season on the small piece of land which was in dispute and defendant’s father put up a hut also on the said land (para 7 and 8 of the plaint). The relief claimed was for decree for possession by removal of the defendants as also by removal or demolition of the huts and materials or structures found on the land in dispute. 7. As far as the findings of ownership of the plaintiff of the land in dispute are concerned there is absolutely no error in the said findings. They are based upon sale certificate. Defendants completely failed to prove that Zamindar gave the land to father of original defendant. 8. However, in view of the case taken up by the plaintiff itself in paragraph 7 and 8 of the plaint and the relief claimed therein it is clearly a case of licence coupled with permission to construct. Such a licence is irrevocable in view of Section 60(b) of Easement Act. 9. Accordingly, the following substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal : (1) Whether licence granted by previous owner Jagdish Sugar Mill became irrevocable in view of Section 60(b) of Easement Act? Section 60 Easement Act is quoted below : A licence may be revoked by the grantor; (a) It is coupled with the transfer of property and such transfer is in force : (b) The licensee, acting upon the licence, has executed a work of a permanent character and incurred expenses in the execution. 10. Plaintiff pleaded and the Courts below found that house, shop and palani of the defendants are standing on the land in dispute. 10. Plaintiff pleaded and the Courts below found that house, shop and palani of the defendants are standing on the land in dispute. These are the constructions of permanent character. The licence therefore became irrevocable. 11. It may be mentioned that this point was neither raised before the Courts below nor in the grounds of this second appeal. However, it may be considered in second appeal for the first time as it is pure question of law based upon the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, rather admitted and pleaded by plaintiff itself. Unfortunately no one appeared on behalf of plaintiff respondent at the time of argument hence notice could not be given to the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent for consideration of this point. (This appeal was admitted in 1976 without framing any substantial question of law as at that time it was not required). 12. There is one more aspect of the matter which requires consideration. Plaintiffs witness P.W.-1 stated that licence was granted 25 years before i.e. in or about 1949. Area of the land in dispute over which defendants constructions are standing is very small (less than 100 sq.yards). In certain circumstances even if plaintiff is entitled to possession and demolition still the Court may refuse to pass the decree for possession and demolition and grant reasonable damages to the plaintiff. Such an alternative relief even if not asked for in the plaint may be granted under Order VII Rule 7, C.P.C. The same principle may be applied to the instant case also. In the year 1949-50 market value of the land in dispute may not be more than few hundred rupees. 13. Even though I have held that licence was irrevocable however, in view of the fact that defendants nowhere raised this plea, it is appropriate that defendants appellants should be directed to pay reasonable compensation/damages to the plaintiff. 14. Accordingly, second appeal is allowed. Judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below directing demolition and dis­possession are set aside and substituted by decree of payment of Rs. 1,000/- by the defendants to the plaintiff. ————